Is the U.S. military involved in mass murder in Colombia?

This massacre in La Macarena, Colombia, is breaking news—with some details not yet confirmed—and it is so disturbing, that I hesitated to post it in GD. But the questions that it raises about U.S. government and military policy in Colombia, and the possibility that U.S. forces participated in this massacre, are very important and need wider currency than the Latin American Forum, for discussion by Democrats, progressives and other DUers.

I have formulated two questions (at the bottom of this post) for DU discussion. I have my own opinions about U.S. policy in Colombia and Latin America—which are quite evident, below. This does not mean that I am not open to other perspectives. I will try to keep my lip zipped in the comment section--except for questions of fact that I might be able to answer—in the interest of encouraging open discussion and perhaps even the beginning of some solutions.

Here is the story as it appeared at the CIPCOL site, and as I posted it in the Latin America Forum. (CIP is the Center for International Policy*):

-------------------------

Peace Patriot
Original message Sat Jan-30-10 05:51 PM

U.S. 'integrates' with ally Colombia on mass murder: 'an infinity of bodies' found (d. 2005-2010)

Found this at BoRev in the comments: http://www.borev.net/2010/01/more_terrible_death-video_from.html#comments

----

January 28, 2010

Miami’s El Nuevo Herald and Spain’s Público have run stories in the past two days about a shocking find in La Macarena, about 200 miles south of Bogotá.

Residents say that after it entered the strongly guerrilla-controlled zone in the mid-2000s, Colombia’s Army began dumping unidentified bodies in a mass grave near a local cemetery. The grave may contain as many as 2,000 bodies.

---

Público reports:

"Since 2005 the Army, whose elite units are deployed in the surrounding area, has been depositing behind the local cemetery hundreds of cadavers with the order that they be buried without names. …

"Jurist Jairo Ramírez, the secretary of the Permanent Committee for the Defense of Human Rights in Colombia, accompanied a delegation of British legislators to the site several weeks ago, when the magnitude of the La Macarena grave began to be discovered. 'What we saw was chilling,' he told Público. 'An infinity of bodies, and on the surface hundreds of white wooden plaques with the inscription NN and dates from 2005 until today.'

"Ramírez adds: 'The Army commander told us that they were guerrillas killed in combat, but the people in the region told us of a multitude of social leaders, campesinos and community human rights defenders who disappeared without a trace.'"

http://www.publico.es/internacional/288773/aparece/colombia/fosa/comun/cadaveres
---

El Nuevo Herald reports:

"A spokesman of the Prosecutor-General’s Office (Fiscalía) in Bogotá revealed to El Nuevo Herald that a mission from that institution’s Technical Investigations Corps (CTI) has already gone to the cemetery and confirmed the existence of 'a large number' of cadavers in the grave, though it only made a few excavations.

“'We became the site for the depositing of the war dead,' declared Eliécer Vargas Moreno, mayor of the municipality. …

"Residents of La Macarena interviewed over the phone by El Nuevo Herald, under the promise that their identities would not be revealed, expressed their suspicion that among the bodies are relatives who disappeared during the last four years. They denied that the bodies are those of guerrillas and asked for the chance to prove it.”

http://www.elnuevoherald.com/noticias/america-latina/colombia/story/640282.html

---

Colombia’s Prosecutor-General’s Office will make its first excavations at the site in mid-March. While we are not jumping to conclusions, we will be watching this case closely.

La Macarena, the site of the grave, has been a very important site of U.S.-aided military operations. In this area, the U.S. government supported and advised the Colombian Army’s 2004-2006 “Plan Patriota” military offensive, and since 2007 (the U.S.) has supported the “Plan for the Integral Consolidation of La Macarena” or PCIM, part of the new “Integrated Action” framework (LINK) that is now guiding much U.S. assistance.

(my emphases)
http://www.cipcol.org/?p=1303
*About CIP: http://www.cipcol.org/?page_id=2
Discussion: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=405x29862

-------------------------------

For those unfamiliar with the recent U.S./Colombia military agreement, here is a good description of the agreement and its context:

----

”…the US Air Force document, dated May 2009, confirms that the concerns of South American nations have been right on target. The document exposes that the true intentions behind the agreement are to enable the US to engage in ‘full spectrum military operations in a critical sub-region of our hemisphere where security and stability is under constant threat from narcotics funded terrorist insurgencies…and anti-US governments…’

“The military agreement between Washington and Colombia authorizes the access and use of seven military installations in Palanquero, Malambo, Tolemaida, Larandia, Apíay, Cartagena and Málaga. Additionally, the agreement allows for ‘the access and use of all other installations and locations as necessary’ throughout Colombia, with no restrictions. Together with the complete immunity the agreement provides to US military and civilian personnel, including private defense and security contractors, the clause authorizing the US to utilize any installation throughout the entire country - even commercial aiports, for military ends, signifies a complete renouncing of Colombian sovereignty and officially converts Colombia into a client-state of the US.”

(my emphases)
http://www.chavezcode.com/2009/11/breaking-news-official-us-air-force.html

-----------------------

If you can stand to read dry, Rand corporation-type descriptions of “robust” USAID/Pentagon programs that relegate the rotting corpses of thousands of innocents into a ‘black hole’ of non-existence, here is just such a report, from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) on the U.S./Colombia plan for the La Macarena area. It is worth reading because it will help you see the situation through, say, the eyes of someone like Donald Rumsfeld, filtered through and purified by Washingtonspeak. It’s important to understand how Washington planners view phenomena such as the FARC guerrillas, peasant farmers, coca production, poverty, state power and so forth, in order to understand how it is possible for U.S. taxpayer money to end up drenched in the blood of innocents.

http://csis.org/files/publication/090602_DeShazo_PCIM_Web.pdf

Here is a much better and very informative read, from the Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA) about the new U.S./Colombia military agreement, the negative reaction to it in Latin America and the general situation including the U.S./Colombia ‘war on drugs’ and war on the FARC guerrillas and on civilians. I don’t endorse everything it says, but it is more “real” than the above: http://www.thepanamanews.com/pn/v_15/issue_16/opinion_12.html

The discovery of some 2,000 bodies “of social leaders, campesinos and community human rights defenders,” in a mass grave of recent venue in Colombia, is disturbing enough, in itself. But the CIPCOL article suggests the further horror, for the people of the U.S., that the U.S. military may have had a part in the massacre of civilians. And it raises serious questions about the USAID-Pentagon-Colombian “Plan for the Integral Consolidation of La Macarena.”

CIPCOL describes La Macarena as “a very important site” of past and current U.S./Colombia “integration” of forces—a phenomenon that is going to be greatly escalated with the increased presence of the U.S. military at seven or more military bases in Colombia, potential U.S. military use of any and all civilian infrastructure, and the doubling (at least) of U.S. soldiers and U.S. ‘contractors’ (to about 1,500 personnel) with full diplomatic immunity for whatever U.S. soldiers and ‘contractors’ do in Colombia. This agreement also means that U.S. planes and pilots, U.S. ships, U.S. high tech surveillance and weaponry, will be at the disposal of the Colombia military.

According to Amnesty International, 92% of the murders of union leaders in Colombia have been committed by the Colombian military (about half) and its closely tied rightwing paramilitary death squads (the other half). Many thousands of union leaders, community organizers, human rights workers, political leftists, journalists, peasant farmers (campesinos) and others have been murdered in Colombia over the last decade in what can only be described as the political “cleansing” of Colombia by rightwing forces. In addition, 3 MILLION campesinos have been internally displaced, mostly by military and paramilitary terror, and hundreds of thousands of those have fled across the border into Venezuela and Ecuador, creating huge refugee and border security problems for those countries.

Colombia—a country with one of the worst human rights records on earth--has received $6-7 BILLION in U.S. military aid over the last half decade or so. I have seen a figure for the new military agreement of $4 BILLION more for Colombia, and I do not believe that this includes the costs of new U.S. military operations at seven or more military bases and other facilities all over Colombia—a total of over $10 BILLION U.S. taxpayer dollars. Also I’m not sure if this $10 billion price tag includes covert operations and items such as $10 million/year from the USAID which provide the civil cosmetics for military occupation of the targeted regions (described in the CSIS document, above). Obama’s 2011 budget apparently reduces aid to Colombia by 20%, but it will still be $500 million (half military, half not) just for the next year.

See: http://colombiareports.com/colombia-news/news/7975-plan-colombia-unmentioned-in-us-2011-budget-proposal.html

The original justification for the expenditure of this huge amount of money was the U.S. “war on drugs.” The Bushwhacks expanded the justification to formally include the FARC guerrillas--an armed leftist insurgency comprised of Colombian citizens that has been fighting the Colombian government for over 40 years. The Bushwhacks thus added Colombia’s civil war to the burdens of U.S. taxpayers, enabled the Colombian military to wipe out the political opposition in targeted areas and greatly expanded the probability that the U.S. military is engaged in killing Colombians.

“Insanity,” as Albert Einstein once said,”Is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

This perfectly describes the U.S. “war on drugs.” It is a failed program which has barely put a dent in the illicit drug trade, while hugely exacerbating the violence and crime on both sides of this “war.”

It has failed because it is, literally, a war, complete with guns, tanks and mass murder--and war cannot solve social problems. The drug trade continues unabated, and is more militarized and lethal than ever, on all sides.

Similarly, more killing cannot, and will not, stop the FARC guerrillas, who have been in rebellion against the Colombian government for more than four decades. The armed resistance to the Colombian government—internal resistance, resistance by Colombia’s own citizens—is a symptom of great social ills, which cannot be solved by more killing. The killing—if massive—can temporarily bury the problem in some places. It will arise again.

Expanding the U.S. military involvement in this civil war is a terrible, TERRIBLE idea. It pits the U.S. not just against the FARC guerrillas but also against ALL local opposition to the Colombian government—the PEACEFUL opposition: those who are trying to organize unions, those who are seeking social justice, small farmers (generally the best organic food producers) and other social and political groups. These are the people whom the Colombian government apparently wants to exterminate along with the FARC guerrillas. Their actions clearly indicate that what they want are “pacified” areas, occupied by the military (theirs and ours), where the rich and the corporate can do whatever they damn please.

Several times the FARC guerrillas have tried to negotiate a peace settlement. The most recent effort was sabotaged by the Colombian and U.S. militaries when they dropped a load of U.S. “smart bombs” on the temporary camp of the FARC’s peace negotiator, Raul Reyes, in March 2008, just inside Ecuador's border, killing Reyes and 24 other sleeping people. Reyes was arranging the release of FARC hostages, in a bid for peace. The U.S./Colombia bombing/raid ended all hope for peace, and almost started a war between the U.S./Colombia and Ecuador/Venezuela—both of whom have long borders with Colombia that are continually destabilized by Colombia’s conflict.

As described in the COHA report, this new U.S./Colombia military agreement was negotiated in secret from the Colombian people, from the Colombian legislature and from all of the other leaders of Latin America. Several Colombian legislators objected. And most of Latin America’s other leaders were angry at the lack of consultation and notice, and are greatly concerned about the U.S. military occupation of Colombia.

In other reading, I have also learned that Venezuela’s president, Hugo Chavez, when he met Barack Obama last spring, particularly asked for U.S. help to end Colombia’s civil war. President Obama’s answer seems to be this U.S./Colombia military agreement, which will escalate Colombia’s war on its own people, and expand U.S. military involvement in that war.

My opinion of this general situation is that the U.S. “war on drugs” is insane (Einstein definition) and extremely corrupt as well, and that the U.S. involvement in Colombia’s civil war is a potential huge, Vietnam-scale disaster in the making, should the corporate/war profiteer forces in this country decide to use Colombia as a “lily pad” for a war against the leftist democracy movement that has swept the region, with the oil rich countries of Venezuela and Ecuador (adjacent to Colombia) as particular targets.

The U.S. did this before, in the 1980s, using Honduras as the “lily pad” for U.S. aggression against Nicaragua and other countries. This could be much bigger and much worse, and even more costly in lives, money and good will in this hemisphere. The current Washington line that the U.S./Colombia military agreement is merely a matter of “a few hundred U.S. military advisers” has a very haunting ring, indeed.

This atrocity in La Macarena raises two important questions about U.S. policy in Latin America—besides the questions about U.S. military involvement and other forms of complicity in the massacre itself. I would like to know DUer’s thoughts on these questions:

1. What is the U.S. doing in Colombia? Why are we increasingly involved in another country’s civil war? Why have we sided with the fascists in that civil war—who have committed far more atrocities than their adversaries (by every objective account, including Amnesty International and the UN Human Rights Commission)?

2. With many Latin American leaders seriously questioning the U.S. “war on drugs” and some countries altogether banning it, as ineffective and a militaristic menace, why is the U.S. still pushing it, and pushing it hard?

Please feel free to discuss these matters from any perspective that you like. My views are well known. What am I missing? What am I not seeing? What is the U.S. doing in Colombia? Who or what is served by this massive U.S. intervention? Should a domestic insurgency in Latin America be folded into the U.S. “war on terror”? Do you agree/disagree that the U.S. should not be aiding an oppressive government in killing its own citizens? Is there anything good to be said about this policy that is not outweighed by the bad (and the very bad)?

And what can we--who are paying for it--do about it—if anything?

What are we doing in Colombia? Same thing we've been doing in Latin America for 60 years or more: propping up dictators who will say they are anti-communist (or anti-terrorist) because the alternative (e.g., Venezuela) is just too horrible to contemplate.

Why does the U.S. continue pushing the "war on drugs"? Because it makes so damn much money for certain people.

I had some HOPE that this policy would CHANGE.

there will be blood.

War on drugs is actually
The monopoly on drugs.

A shame the sheeple don't have time to be outraged.
Too busy shoppin.

in places like Colombia when the people try to ditch the right wing repression we're propping up.

DEA agents and CIA running around murdering people, propping up fascist dictators, promoting war all over South America.. it's getting very old.

Calderon of Mexico just met with Mrs. Clinton.. he more or less told her, "he is sick and tired of dealing with border wars and massacres created by America's refusal to re-think the WOD.

A non-sensical-expensive-corrupt WOD that causes more problems than the evil it is supposed to cure.

And the band plays on...

...and posting every possibly derogatory story they can find about Venezuela, but who grow very quiet when this kind of stuff is posted.

9 out of 10 of his detractors don't give a shit about actual dictators. Uribe who? Columbia where?

If you're going to defend these people I'm talking about, save it. I'm not in the fucking mood for posers anymore.

but I realize you feel mighty self-righteous about this subject, so carry on.

Anyone who pays attention to the Hugo hand wringers here AND this kind of stuff notices that they rarely have anything to say about it. Only Hugo.

I would have said 10 out 10 but you showed up.

they don't know much about the subject, I'm hardly going to fault them for that.

Should they be aware of what's taken place, and what continues to take place, in Colombia? Probably, but it's a big world and we've all had to pick and choose where our attentions will be focused. There's simply too much injustice in the world for any one human being to be knowledgeable about it all.

I would like the see the campaign statements of the Drug Czars. I bet the American people would be amazed... (or maybe not so amazed)... as the case may be.

It seems to me that those countries "closest" to our government (e.g., the Pentagon, the State Department) suffer the most violence and repression. I'm thinking about poor Colombia, Mexico, Peru and now Honduras.

Is that true? Can anyone think of a counter example? TIA

and the U.S. military has no presence in Costa Rica that I know of. I don't know anything about Costa Rica as to the U.S. "war on drugs"--I just picked up somewhere that CR is some sort of de-militarized zone. Oh, I remember what it was. Oscar Arias said something like the problem in Honduras (besides Honduras having "the worst constitution in the world"--Arias) was the military, i.e., CR doesn't have coups because they don't have a military.

Nor do I know for sure that CR has little or no violent repression. That is just my general impression--and I've certainly learned to distrust "general impressions" which tend to be corpo-fascist 'news' media impressions which tend to disintegrate when you do any independent investigation of any issue in Latin America.

CR is a strong U.S. ally, and APPARENTLY does not have a police state. I think they got through the CAFTA vote--a very close and controversial vote, with Oscar Arias calling in all of his political "chips" to get it passed--without serious (or any?) repression. The unions were furious about CAFTA. Down the road, CR may develop a police state to enforce CAFTA provisions that will lower wages, privatize and loot public services, and so forth. Right now, they still have fairly good labor conditions, no military, no police state and no repression that I've heard of.

And I cannot think of another example. U.S. ally in Latin America that is not wracked with violence and repression? Very rare. Alliance with the U.S. seems to be nearly equivalent to rightwing government (the poor majority gets poorer), state violence and repression and also INCREASED drug trafficking and attendant crime.

On the other hand, that means DEA works directly with law enforcement. Hmm.

Therefore, it might not receive money for "military aid" but for police aid.

Costa Rican Minister of Foreign Affairs Bruno Stagno and U.S. Embassy Chargé d’Affaires Peter Brennan participated in the signing ceremony of the amendment to the original Merida understanding letter.
Merida Initiative Provides Nearly an Additional $1 million to Costa Rica

San Jose - September 29, 2009
Costa Rica received $976,000 in addition to the original $4.3 million allotted by the Merida Initiative to combat drug trafficking, money laundering and organized crime.
The additional money will be used to buy police equipment and conduct special training against money laundering.
The Merida Initiative is not simply a U.S. plan for Costa Rica, but is a plan that has been jointly developed and agreed upon by officials from both countries.

http://sanjose.usembassy.gov/fp20090929.html

Recibe Costa Rica 4,3 millones de dólares para combatir el narcotráfico
SAN JOSE, 17 jun (Xinhua) -- El gobierno de Costa Rica suscribió hoy un memorando de entendimiento con Estados Unidos para recibir 4,3 millones de dólares correspondientes a la "Iniciativa Mérida" para combatir el narcotráfico.

El documento fue firmado por el embajador de Estados Unidos en Costa Rica, Peter Cianchette, y la ministra de Seguridad costarricense, Jannina del Vecchio.

Cianchette afirmó que este dinero servirá para que Costa Rica compre implementos como cascos, sistemas de posicionamiento satelital, chalecos antibalas, lanchas y otros artefactos para el combate del narcotráfico.

Entre tanto, Del Vecchio destacó la importancia de este aporte del gobierno norteamericano.

La ministra dijo que durante los tres años que tiene el actual gobierno, se han decomisado cerca de 80.000 kilos de cocaína, todo un logro si se consideran los escasos recursos con que cuenta la policía costarricense.

Por su parte, el presidente de Costa Rica, Oscar Arias, agradeció a Estados Unidos por el aporte, aunque en ocasiones anteriores ha criticado que los fondos otorgados por la Iniciativa Mérida, que invierte casi 23.000 millones de dólares al año, son "insuficientes" para combatir a una industria delictiva.
http://www.spanish.xinhuanet.com/spanish/2009-06/18/content_894933.htm


Arias even complains about the "little money sent" stating that " what the US gives CR to fight drugs is what they spend in Irak in one day.. It's not even enough to buy a boat".
Los recursos del Plan Mérida, equivalentes a lo que gasta EU en un día en Irak: Óscar Arias
http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2009/03/27/index.php?section=politica&article=014n1pol

A nosotros (Costa Rica) en el Plan Mérida nos tocan cuatro o cinco millones de dólares que con eso no podemos comprar pero ni una lancha siquiera para capturar la cocaína que pasa cerca de nuestras costas", añadió el presidente Arias.

http://www.soitu.es/soitu/2009/03/27/info/1238125294_026826.html




Now Lobo is stating that he will put more emphasis (as if it weren't enough) in strengthening the military in Honduras:
http://noticias.terra.com/articulos/act2180602/lobo_dice_que_su_gobierno_fortalecera_a_las_fuerzas_armadas/


And he also spoke about getting back to the Merida Initiative http://www.laprensa.hn/Ediciones/2010/02/02/Noticias/EUA-reactivara-Plan-Merida-en-Honduras#dsq-comments


As soon as President Colom's murder allegations was cleared up by a UN anticorruption organization, he decided to recognize Lobo, although last month he said at least once that he wouldn't. Then, suddenly, he inagurated a US military base in Guatemala to "fight drugs":
http://ecodiario.eleconomista.es/internacional/noticias/760192/09/08/Presidente-de-Guatemala-inaugura-una-rehabilitada-base-militar.html


Our poor countries and their peoples......

As I said, so it isn't any military that receives "aid" but law enforcement.

And I know this happens in Costa Rica. The police, like the military, uses weapons. If you think that there is a substantial difference between military and police in our countries, you are wrong. In fact, for instance in Honduras, the police, like the army, protects private interests, not the peoples and they are responsible of many crimes against the population especially after the coup d'etat.

Many many state crimes in Costa Rica are concealed by the media there and it's not as happy as everyone makes it out to be. In fact I have a theory about the US and US media using Costa Rica to counter the immense human development accomplishments Cuba has made in spite of being blocked by an embargo. They want to set a precedent in Costa Rica of what Central America should be. But it is not like that.

There is a lot of racism and xenophobia there against Nicaraguans and the crimes against them by the authorities are not being published anywhere. The government also practices apartheid when it comes to black people voting.

In fact, it's probably much worse for the people who would normally have more contact with the police than the military. I think we're talking at cross purposes here.

It looks like my utter distrust of the corpo-fascist press is justified once again. I have often seen the corpo-fascist press create an IMPRESSION of country or a leader that is unrelated to the facts--or even in stark contradiction of the plain facts--an IMPRESSION that serves powerful rich elites, multinational corporations and war profiteers. So I was aware enough of this media "impression" phenomena to distrust my own, media-formed impression of Costa Rica. I don't know much about Costa Rica except that the unions--which had fought long and hard for good wages and other benefits--utterly opposed CAFTA and have had it shoved down their throats by the ruling establishment, led by "Nobel Peace Prize winner" Oscar Arias.

When he won the Nobel Peace Prize, I got an "impression" from the media that he was a good president. I remember reading that he would walk across the street from his presidential office, all by himself, and join ordinary people at a cafe for lunch. I thought, at the time: That's how Thomas Jefferson viewed the presidency. No 'honor guards,' No pomp and circumstance. Not royalty. No NEED for security. Just one citizen serving the others. It was a charming picture of Arias. I have since learned more about what he got the Nobel Peace Prize for--and I am torn about that. He got it for a "truth and reconciliation" process in Guatemala, where TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND Mayan villagers were slaughtered in the 1980s by Reagan's henchmen. While the T&R process helped stop the violence, it also immunized the heinous war criminals who were doing Reagan's dirty work in Guatemala--slaughtering whole villages, ripping babies from their mother's wombs, slitting children's throats in front of their parents--criminals who are still walking around Guatemala and remain a serious threat to Guatemalan democracy, as the result of the Arias-negotiated peace. As for Reagan, only RECENTLY did his complicity get exposed--thirty years later. So the T&R process was a coverup of U.S. complicity, and a way for there to be no consequences for those who did U.S. bidding in slaughtering so many people in such horrible, horrible ways.

I can't be against the end of the violence, of course. But it was not the end of **U.S.** violence in Latin America and the world, and that is the problem. It was the LEAST that could be done and, basically, a coverup--probably because the perpetrators, if they had been prosecuted, might have exposed their ties to the Reaganites. And you rightfully point to Honduras,--where rightwing death squads are currently "cleansing" Honduras of leftist leaders, and where, once again, the U.S. role has been smeared and smothered over by the corpo-fascist press AND by, guess who? Oscar Arias! (--who, at the bidding of the U.S., helped keep the rightwing military coup in power for six months, while they jailed, tortured and murdered leftists and consolidated elite/corporate control of the country).

I think your theory about Cuba vs Costa Rica is probably right on (and we don't yet know the CIA "think tank" where it was designed). No government, even including Venezuela, has had such putrid slander against it by our State Department and the corporate press. Cuba = bad. Costa Rica = good. That is exactly the "meme."

I question, however, what came first - the internal conflicts in some of these countries or the flood of U.S. aid. Are we causing these conflicts or simply exacerbating them? I'd argue the latter.

which is getting billions and billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars, and which appears to be using that U.S. support to "cleanse" Colombia of political opposition to the corrupt, rightwing government. The question we need to ask now is not who started Colombia's civil war (which has origins in the 1950s-1960s), but, instead, this: Is current U.S. funding of one side of that war encouraging the massacre of civilians, and are the Pentagon, USAID and other U.S. entities involved in such massacres? Also, is this new U.S. military buildup in Colombia an oil war plan?

Historical questions are almost always relevant to current events. I'm thinking of the U.S. deliberate destruction of Iranian democracy in the mid-1950s and subsequent horrors which greatly influence the Iran of today. Similar U.S. meddling all over Latin America resulted in armed leftist insurgencies fighting against U.S.-imposed fascist dictatorships in numerous countries, from the 1950s onward. The FARC guerrillas are an extension of that war FOR democracy and social justice. But, as even Fidel Castro has said, armed resistance is outmoded and the FARC ought to lay down their arms and sue for peace. However, when they tried to do just--in late 2007-early 2008--the U.S/Colombia blew their peace negotiator, Raul Reyes, to smithereens (dropping a load of U.S. "smart bombs" on his hostage release camp, just inside Ecuador's border, in March 2008, killing 25 sleeping people, including Reyes).

The FARC have killed people; they have probably engaged in drug trafficking to support their 40+ year insurgency; and they have certainly engaged in the obnoxious crime of holding hostages, sometimes for long periods. But their crimes pale into insignificance next to the crimes of the Colombian military and its closely tied rightwing death squads. Amnesty International attributes **92%** of the murders of union leaders in Colombia, for instance, to the Colombian military and its death squads (about half and half). There are also close ties between the deaths squads and their drug trafficking and Colombia's political leadership. So all parties in this civil war are committing crimes. But the U.S. is aiding and abetting the side with, by far, the worse record of violence. The Colombian government has the worst human rights record in Latin America and one of the worst in the world. They also have the second worst human displacement crises, after Sudan--mostly the result of Colombian military and paramilitary terror, and U.S.-instigated toxic pesticide spraying--against peasant farmers. (Latest estimate: 4 million displaced, poor, peasant farmers.)

If you extrapolate backwards through the last 50 years, and the 50 years before that--with the sole exception of the "New Deal" era (which attempted a more respectful policy in the context of WW II)--you will find the U.S. at the root of numerous conflicts in Latin America, always on the wrong side--the side of U.S. corporate exploiters and local rich oligarchies. It is one of the tragedies of our history that we have almost never supported democracy in Latin America, let alone social justice. We have done the opposite. That is the reality. And it is certainly important for us to know this. But assigning blame for who started the Colombian civil war 40-plus years ago--the leftist guerrillas, or Colombia's rich elite, with or without the CIA?--is truly a "chicken and egg" question. It is U.S. policy to support the rightwing in Latin America because they are bribable by U.S. corporations, and that is WHY there is still an armed leftist insurgency in Colombia, which is NOT a democratic country in which the poor majority can safely advocate for themselves and elect leaders to serve their interests--as has now occurred in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala, and almost occurred in Mexico (and just got undone Honduras and Chile).

The U.S. has been actively trying to undo these democratic gains in Latin America, for the same old reasons and in the same old ways. That has not changed--as Honduras amply demonstrated. But the horrors in the Colombia are off the charts. They are Iraq-scale horrors. And does our government really want this third war, that was so greatly stoked by the Bushwhacks and that clearly can be used for further aggression--against Venezuela, against Ecuador--if the rightwing in the U.S. regains power or manipulates the situation to corner Obama into an extended regional war?

That is the important question, in my view--not whether the U.S instigated or just exacerbated the war in Colombia.

particularly with regard to the negative consequences that our meddling in certain other countries has had (Iran, etc.) I question, however, whether the FARC truly grew out of an effort to pursue "democracy" in Latin America. As I recall, they grew out of the Communist Party and the independent republics and were heavily inspired by what had taken place in Cuba during the Revolution there, so I'm quite skeptical of your claim in this respect. I do believe their attitude changed by the 1980s, as they began to enter the political process, but the Colombian right put a quick and bloody end to that - a shame, because that seems to have been that last real chance for peace in that country as far as I'm concerned. Where they stand today is iffy. I wouldn't place a lot of hope on them entering the political process again without some huge changes taking place on the ground - and I'm not holding my breath.

I would agree with you, though, that they grew out of an effort to further pursue what they, and many others, saw as social justice, though I find myself questioning just how much relevance their message has today - between their own besmirched record and the highly agrarian nature of their message in a country that is becoming increasingly urban.

With regard to Reyes' death, I assume the fact that they had dealt with Reyes in the past, to no avail, and were handed the opportunity to deliver the FARC a massive blow pretty much made the decision to take him out a no-brainer from the Colombian military's perspective. This will probably continue to make me rather unpopular when it comes to discussing Colombia, but that incident doesn't particularly shock or upset me. As they say, live by the sword, die by the sword.

I do generally agree with your perspective that the Colombian military and paramilitaries have committed far more crimes (particularly, the paramilitaries) and that it ought to be openly acknowledged that the U.S. is backing the side with the worst human rights record in this conflict.

I believe we've discussed Honduras a bit in the past, and I find it unlikely that we'll see eye to eye on what transpired therek, but.... I believe U.S. foreign policy towards particular nations can change from administration to administration, and hardly see what transpired there as some U.S. effort to undo democratic gains.

You know, the ones who denounce the tinpot dictator Chavez for shutting down a coup-supporting TV station.

I figured they would be bopping on over and writing down everything in a virtual bacchanalia of outrage over these horrible human rights violations.

However, I'm not holding my breath. In fact, it's my guess that the rise of governments who oppose the American military's presence in Latin America makes such a reassessment all the more unlikely. We're going to hold onto what we've got, no matter how much blood is spilled.

Gotta protect the property and the aquifer beneath for decades to come.

and they rescinded their non-extradition law and their law giving immunity to the U.S. military, and the new president, Fernando Lugo, just declined a military agreement with the U.S. He does not want the U.S. military on Paraguayan soil.

Paraguay is no longer an easy haven for war criminals, mass murderers and torturers. I don't know where this leaves the Bush Cartel and their effort to get control of South America's major aquifer. I could never find confirmation that they actually bought property there.

Paraguay's major export, besides soy, is hydroelectric power. Lula da Silva helped Lugo re-negotiate Paraguay's contracts with corporations in Brazil, to give Paraguay a better deal (to help fund social programs). The previous rightwing government had gotten them a very unfair deal--a common phenomenon, in these countries, whereby the rich sell the country's resources on the cheap, rake some profit off the top for themselves, and probably accept bribes as well, and the poor never see a peso of it.

That's what was going on in Venezuela, prior to Chavez, and in Bolivia, prior to Morales. Chavez really pissed Exxon Mobil off, by demanding a 60/40 profit share, favoring Venezuela's social programs. (The previous, rightwing government had been giving the oil away, in a 10/90 split, favoring the multinationals.) Exxon Mobil walked out of the talks, and went into a "first world" court to try to punish Venezuela by seizing $12 billion of Venezuela's assets--but they lost that legal action. Other big companies stayed in the talks and are now reaping the benefits of REASONABLE profit. Chavez just cut a 60/40 deal with an Italian energy company, to develop some of the massive--biggest in the world--oil reserves in the Orinoco belt, and the Italian company was thrilled to get the contract.

That much I remember seeing off a google satellite mapping.

I did not know they would extradite now. Good on them.

I did not know that the ranch purchases were not vetted, although it was a side show. Should I reach back and try and talk with some old friends down there who have such ranches? A RW judge and a LW lawyer as each others buddies. Perhaps it does not matter as much now.

The power generation at Itaipu dam is 50Hz on the Paraguay side instead of 60Hz for the Brazilians. Probably doesn't matter so much these days since the Brazilians started using DC, not AC, to transfer power. It was a silly idea to go with 50Hz, but, oh well. Just so much water over the dam.

Thanks for the update. Greatly appreciated.

We had a theory here that the Bushwhacks were going to use that airstrip to ferry U.S. troops and other support to the U.S./Bushwhack-instigated, white separatist insurrection in neighboring eastern Bolivia, in late summer/early fall, 2008--but maybe got foiled by Paraguay electing their first leftist president in 61 years, just as the Bolivian coup attempt matured (--election of Fernando Lugo--who had made it clear that he opposes U.S. troops in Paraguay).

I actually don't know who owns/controls the airstrip. I do know that a bunch of U.S troops came into Paraguay that way, but were doing joint maneuvers with the Paraguayan military at the other end of Paraguay (from Bolivia), pursuing some Bushwhack "terrorist" nebula in the tri-corner area.

The Bushwhack Financial 9/11 was occurring simultaneously--Sept 2008, last months of the Bush Junta--so that may have distracted them, too. The coup in Bolivia failed. Morales kicked the U.S./Bushwhack ambassador and the DEA out of Bolivia. And UNASUR--formalized that very summer--backed him up (unanimously) and helped get the eastern provinces calmed down. (When Lugo was elected, Morales sent him this message: "Welcome to the 'Axis of Evil'!)

----------------

I don't understand this--and would greatly appreciate you explaining it. What is this all about?

"The power generation at Itaipu dam is 50Hz on the Paraguay side instead of 60Hz for the Brazilians. Probably doesn't matter so much these days since the Brazilians started using DC, not AC, to transfer power. It was a silly idea to go with 50Hz, but, oh well. Just so much water over the dam."

-----------------

Would also appreciate an update on the political situation in Paraguay. How is Lugo doing? Do they have more government revenues because of the renegotiated contracts with Brazilian companies? Has Lugo been able to start improving things for the poor? I know he has a difficult legislature. Will the rightwingers be voted out, and lose obstructionist power, in the next elections? Has Lugo been able to consolidate/organize his support (a rather fractitious coalition)? Has he been able to do anything about the toxic pesticide spraying on the soy farms (so harmful to the workers), or land reform? Has his private life 'scandal' harmed him at all? (I read that he fathered a child while he was still a bishop.) Has the Catholic Church remained hands-off? Has anyone been able to confirm that the Bush Cartel actually bought the land on the aquifer? (And is Reverend Moon still there, on the next door land?) How did Lugo's refusal of the U.S. military deal go down locally?

Wow, I have a lot of questions about Paraguay.


-----------------

Oh, one other interesting fact about Paraguay. It was the corrupt Colorado Party government (in power for 61 years) who rescinded the non-extradition law and the U.S. military immunity, just before Lugo was elected. It was a requirement of their membership in MERCOSUR--an important South American trade group--and may also have been a requirement for their joining the Venezuela-organized Bank of the South. These regional institutions provide Paraguay with the economic advantages of collective regional action on issues like development projects. loans and fair trade. So 'the handwrting was on the wall' before Lugo was elected that Paraguay had to modernize and reach better accord with their leftist neighbors. What this tells me is that Paraguay's rightwing is not the "wrecking crew" that, say, Honduras' rightwing is. I could be wrong, of course. Given Honduras and Chile, they might think a coup is feasible--that the "winds are blowing the other way now" (--the narrative of our corpo-fascist press). The Obama administration will certainly be no obstacle to restoration of rightwing rule by whatever means. I hate to make that prediction, but there is plenty of reason to believe it.

Another question about Paraguay: I gather there was a coup conspiracy in the Paraguayan military, and Lugo demoted some people in the military because of it. What was all that about?

When I heard we had operations and troops in Columbia I said to myself, :wtf:

And I say it now. Nothing good will come of this.

What are we doing in Colombia?

And that's not really about Obama. That's about a longtime policy.

bola de ojetes.

:)

overthrow Chavez in Venezuela.

You say that it is "certainly not" to make war on Venezuela. Why are you so certain? And what are your sources for that certainty?

Do the reasons given for this reorganization add up? Given the losses of our bases elsewhere, and the U.S.' clear desire to be able to reach any and all places in this hemisphere in short order, I have to say that they do.

Frankly, I don't know why you guys are so hung up on the bases, anyway. It seems to me, most coups, attempted coups, and unrest tend to be directed from embassies, and not military bases...

US Financing Its Own Liability: Alvaro Uribe
Thursday, 5 February 2009, 10:00 am
Opinion: Jose Maria Rodriguez Gonzalez


Jose Maria Rodriguez Gonzalez
U.S. Foreign Policy Analyst
Part 1: Alvaro Uribe’s paramilitary politics

The paramilitary politics, para-politics, or “parapolítica” - as it is known in Colombia, represents the interests of terrorist paramilitary forces, narco trafficking mafia, and political followers of the Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, also branded as Uribeists. While Bush, U.S. fundamentalist conservatives (commonly identified as neocons) and Republicans in general developed a passion for this dangerous blend, Barack Obama – a believer in the rule of law, a human rights advocate, and a pragmatic social activist - seems unlikely to become a member of Uribe’s fan club.

Things to Remember about Alvaro Uribe

Even if Alvaro Uribe states that he has nothing to do with terrorism and narco-trafficking in Colombia, there are many facts that point in a different direction. For instance, Alvaro Uribe’s mother is a cousin of Fabio Ochoa, who is directly associated with the drug mafia known as the “Ochoa Clan.” Pablo Escobar, the renowned mafia chief, was Uribe’s father's best friend. Uribe’s key advisor and his long term confidant, Obdulio Gaviria, was Pablo Escobar’s defense lawyer and Pablo Escobar’s cousin.

The list can go on. President Uribe’s brother, Santiago, and their cousin Mario, were accused of criminal activities, including land stealing. They worked in association with terrorist paramilitaries. Mario Uribe tried to escape from his charges to Costa Rica. After that he was captured and jailed for a short period of time, but then of course, he was released because of the ‘technical’ reasons.

Alvaro Uribe’s family ties to narco-mafia not being enough, many of his current government officials and Uribe’s collaborators have links to crime and drug-traffickers. For example, Jorge Noguera, Uribe’s close friend and his 2002’ presidential campaign manager in Colombia’s north coast, was accused of criminal activities that he committed in association with terrorist narco-paramilitaries.

His crimes were directed at weakening Uribe’s opponents. Instead of investigating these serious accusations against Noguera, the newly elected President Uribe promoted Noguera to a position of the Chief of the Colombia’s Central Intelligence Agency, called “Administrative Department of Security” or DAS (in Spanish). Already as the chief of the national intelligence service, Jorge Noguera was accused in court of providing the lists of union, community and political leaders to the paramilitaries for the purpose of having the former assassinated. To protect his partner again, Uribe named Jorge Noguera as a Consul to the Colombian Consulate in Milan, Italy, this time around. Thanks to president Uribe’s constant advocacy, the law has hard time keeping Noguera in jail.

Maria Consuelo Araújo, a former Uribe Secretary of State, diplomacy chief – is another example. Her father and brother, an uribeist senator, were charged with crimes they committed in association with narco paramilitaries. President Uribe fought to the last resort against Maria Consuelo Araújo’s resignation, despite all the negative consequences to Colombia prestige in this case.

Unbelievable truth, Uribe’s top National Police Chief, General Oscar Naranjo’s brother Juan David Naranjo is in jail in Germany for narco trafficking.

Also, Uribe’s Minister of the Interior and Justice Fabio Valencia Cossio’s brother - Guillermo Valencia Cossio - was jailed for associating with paramilitaries while being a Medellín Prosecutor. Medellín is a large city, the capital of Antioquia Province. It is a region of Alvaro Uribe’s and paramilitary’s great influence. It is important to note that the Interior and Justice Ministry is the second position of power in the government after the president.

Moreover, Fernando Londono - Uribe’s first Minister of Interior and Justice conspired together with an Italian company “Recchi” against Colombia’s interests. He unlawfully bought shares in Invercolsa, a petroleum assets holding company, making believe he was its employee. Fernando Londoño, was ordered by the Court to return around three million dollars to the company and its workers. Fernando Londoño is however still creating excuses to never return those moneys. Fernando Londoño is like the missing link of Rod Blagojevich.

Another incredible reality, on May 22, 2006, an anti-insurgency Army platoon slaughtered the whole Police anti-drug elite team. This anti-drug squad was most successful in the war against narcotics. They were shot at a close range from behind, when attempting to capture Diego Montoya - an important narco-traffickers’ chief with ties to the Army. This case also demonstrates the frustration of the fight against drugs in Uribe’s government. The hidden problem in these cases is the Colombian Army collaboration with the narco-traffickers. Let’s keep it in mind that Alvaro Uribe is Colombian Army’s Commander in Chief.

More:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0902/S00114.htm

While I, unfortunately, don't find this story difficult to believe, I've got to question exactly the extent of the role the United States played in this. Were these joint operations, involving both U.S. and Colombia special forces? Or did the U.S. simply help draft the overall plan, which was then carried out by the Colombians themselves? It's an important distintion, IMO, and one that isn't abundantly clear from the sources.

With that said, I must say, by this point that even if U.S. special forces weren't directly involved, few people who have paid attention to the situation in Colombia can honestly say they'd be shocked that the Colombian military would act in such a way. They have a well established track record in this regard - one that the U.S. has all too often been willing to turn a blind eye to. In other words, even if the U.S. military was ignorant of what was transpiring, that ignorance was by choice and there's no excuse for it.

With regard to your questions:

1) What the U.S. is doing in Colombia is complex. Initially, one might have been able to boil it down to defeating the FARC and stemming the flow of drugs (the priority each of these is given at any particular moment could switch, depending on who is in charge). Now, one must add in the factor that we're going to be using Colombia as our main base of operations, allowing us to easily access other, less American-friendly areas in Latin America. Why is equally complex, but as it stands today, right at this moment, we need the Colombian governmet on our side if we're going to continue to maintain our current role in this hemisphere.

2) Because the alternatives to the War on Drugs are political suicide within the United States.

why?

First, past marijuana, the legalization of drugs lacks much popular support.

Secondly, cracking down on the American arms making their way south would undoubtedly create an uproar.

No one wants to be seen as anti-gun or as putting a crack pipe in the hand of a child.

are actually holding the world economy together (--and are propping up the banksters while they rip us off one more time, with bailouts, bonuses, credit card usury and so forth).

The U.S. CAN'T stop the drug trade. It's "too big to fail" (i.e., to be stopped). Everything would collapse.

But if this is true--and it's certainly believable--then what ARE we doing giving Colombia $10 billion (2000-2020 AD), and infusing Colombia with yet more costly U.S. military personnel, planes, pilots, navy ships, high tech surveillance and what not, at seven new military bases?

You say: "...one must add in the factor that we're going to be using Colombia as our main base of operations, allowing us to easily access other, less American-friendly areas in Latin America. Why is equally complex, but as it stands today, right at this moment, we need the Colombian governmet on our side if we're going to continue to maintain our current role in this hemisphere."

I think the "U.S. role" in the hemisphere got rather changed by the people of Venezuela, when they peacefully defeated the U.S.-supported coup against the Chavez government. It was a watershed political event in the region. The U.S. could no longer dictate what occurred there. And many other assertions of democracy, sovereignty and independence followed, all over South and Central America.

So it is not exactly accurate to say that the U.S. is doing things "to maintain our current role in this hemisphere." It is more accurate to say that the U.S. is doing things to REASSERT its OLD role as hemispheric dictator.

I don't think that this reality is terrible complex. It has many aspects to it, to be sure--over a very large landscape of countries each of whom might require a different solution to achieve the U.S. goals of, a) defeating the left; b) destroying democracy: and c) restoring rightwing/fascist rule in the interest of U.S.-based global corporate predators.

The horror is that the Obama team may be better at this than the Bushwhacks.

----------------------

But let me posit this to you, as to the U.S. need for allies in the region: What if that $10 billion had been spent on, a) brokering a peace in Colombia's civil war, and b) significantly improving the lives of Colombia's poor majority? Wouldn't the Colombian people--and, indeed, most Latin Americans and their leaders--rejoice, and flock to the U.S. as allies--for a respectful, helpful, cooperative, mutually beneficial partnership?

Why are we compelled to buy an ally, with $10 billion in military aid to a government/military with one of the worst human rights records on earth, when we could have ALL of Latin America as U.S. allies, if only the U.S. would support democracy and social justice?

Part of the answer is that Occidental Petroleum and Chiquita International and Exxon Mobil and Monsanto and Dyncorp and Blackwater and other war profiteers are controlling U.S. policy. U.S. policy is NOT being designed or implemented for the good of the people of Latin America (or for our own good, for that matter). And that is WHY the U.S. has so few allies in this hemisphere.

Latin Americans don't hate us, but they do profoundly hate what successive U.S. governments have done to them--time and again impoverished them, approved torture and death for their best leaders, and destroyed their democracies. I'm surprised they don't hate us--but they are not inherently inclined to.

As Evo Morales said: "We want partners, not bosses."

Why can't we be "partners" and stop trying to buy "friends" with mayhem and death? ALL of Latin America hoped that this would be the case with the new Obama administration, which threw that tremendous good will away--by their devious actions in Honduras and this new affront, the U.S. military occupation of Colombia.

The true rulers of this country--who are not elected--do NOT want a level playing field with Latin America. They do not want "partners." They want slaves. And they have paralyzed our political system to prevent it from producing anything better.

At least not back to the days of Nixon or Reagan. If it were, we wouldn't have accepted the consistent election of leaders who are, to varying degrees, hostile to American interests throughout Latin America. There would be no Pink Tide to speak of. That's how I see it, anyway.

What the U.S. is after is not to dictate who will rule which country, but simply to ensure that we're the premiere military power in the hemisphere and able to keep the other big dogs out.

To answer your question, I've got to say, after watching some of the criticisms to the U.S.' aid efforts in Haiti, I find it extremely difficult to believe that some people would happily accept American as allies, no matter how much money they spent on any cause. I mean, can you sincerely tell me you believe Chavez would get on tv and talk about what wonderful things the U.S. is doing if we were to spend that $10 bil. otherwise? To some extent or another, we're always going to be the bad guys who, even when we're doing something positive, are secretly doing it for absolutely god awful reasons in some leaders' minds. Leaders love scapegoats, and for Latin American leaders, we make a wonderful one.

That's not to say you don't have a point. Frankly, I do believe our money needs to be spent far more wisely in Colombia, focusing less on who our traditional allies there have been and more on what is truly just for all parties involved.

These things are almost NEVER part of the fare from our own corporate media. Sad. Really sad. This article does actually bring up the latest mass grave discovery, which you've thoughtfully shared with DU'ers who are interested.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Wednesday, February 03, 2010
Colombia: President Alvaro Uribe - so many skeletons in his closet, the door has now burst open

The dark history of President Alvaro Uribe (photo) is well known for its seedy connections to narco-traffickers, terrorists and murderers. When Mayor of the City of Medellin, narco-terrorist death squads sent thousands of civilians to the most horrific deaths. Now, mass graves with thousands of bodies have been uncovered.

Columbia is covered in a fine white powder. It is called cocaine. The leaves of the coca plant are crushed and pounded with a solvent. Wax is then removed from the solution and hydrochloric acid is added to the remainder to separate out the cocaine alkaloids. The crystals that are left are dissolved with methyl alcohol, are recrystallized and dissolved in sulphuric acid

Millions of doses worth billions of dollars flood the streets of the United States of America, and other countries, every year destroying families, sending crime rates soaring, tearing society apart. The USA backed Colombia’s Mayor of Medellin, the epicenter of the narcotics trade, Álvaro Uribe in his bid for the Presidency of Colombia, despite his alleged links to AUC, a paramilitary group classified by Washington as a terrorist organization.

As Mayor of Medellin, in the early 1980s, the city was referred to as “The Sanctuary” because the city administration afforded protection to drugs traffickers such as Pablo Escobar, whose projects Uribe (son of the known narco-trafficker Alberto Uribe Sierra) supported. His chief of staff was Pedro Juan Moreno Villa, who controlled not only the cocaine precursor chemical industry (producing substances needed for the production of cocaine) but also the paramilitaries under whose reign of terror in the Department of Antioquia thousands of people disappeared, mainly Uribe’s opponents. During the 1980s, Uribe’s CONVIVIR vigilantes massacred thousands of civilians, before merging with the terrorist organization AUC.

More:
http://ionglobaltrends.blogspot.com/2010/02/colombia-president-alvaro-uribe-so-many.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FzqKG+%28i+On+Global+Trends%29

torture, assassination of entire groups of Colombians.

It can be easily researched by using any numbers of terms involving paramilitaries, chainsaws, torture, murder. Witnesses have testified, some of them former paras, going into villages and killing everyone they can find, even children.

They have testified some of these paramilitary (death squad) murders have been attended by active Colombian soldiers. In some cases, the Colombian soldiers have sealed all routes in and out of villages while the death squads tortured and murdered the citizens over a period of several days.

THIS is the filth our own tax dollars have been underwriting all these long, obscene, unforgiveable years. We have been given no choice in it whatsoever, and the news just doesn't seem to get shared with US citizens by our corporate "news" media, although it occurs in Spanish sources.

Colombian Paramilitaries’ Successors Called a Threat
By SIMON ROMERO
Published: February 3, 2010

CARACAS, Venezuela — Criminal armies that emerged from the ashes of the Colombian government’s attempt to disband paramilitary groups are spreading their reach across the country’s economy while engaging in a broad range of rights abuses, including massacres, rapes and forced displacement, a human rights group said Wednesday.

A report by the group, Human Rights Watch, detailed the activities of the paramilitary successor groups, which feed off Colombia’s cocaine trade. The drug trade remains lucrative despite Washington’s channeling of more than $5 billion of security and antinarcotics aid to Colombia, making it a top recipient of United States aid outside the Middle East.

“One major reason why combating these groups is not a priority is that it’s hard for the current government to acknowledge that a significant part of its security policy is failing,” said José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director for Human Rights Watch, speaking in Bogotá, Colombia.

Seeking to influence the Obama administration’s policies toward Colombia, the group recommended delaying ratification of a long-awaited trade deal until Colombia’s government vigorously and effectively confronts the criminal groups, which succeeded paramilitaries formed by landowners decades ago to combat guerrillas.

More:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/world/americas/04colombia.html?ref=world

Both have been extremely untrustworthy sources as to trumpeting CIA psyops/disinformation about Venezuela. So, it is very important to ask questions about their motives in publishing this article (or others) about the U.S.-funded, rightwing horrors in Colombia.

Right off the bat, Vivanco paints Colombia's leaders as somehow hapless victims of rightwing death squads who, in truth, are very closely tied to Colombia's political and military leaders:

'One major reason why combating these groups is not a priority is that it’s hard for the current government to acknowledge that a significant part of its security policy is failing,' said José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director for Human Rights Watch, speaking in Bogotá, Colombia." --Simon Romero, NYT

That is a ridiculous assertion. It's "not hard" to "acknowledge" a failure that you don't consider a failure at all, and that is, in fact, in your view, a triumph--the continued mass murder of peaceful leftists in Colombia. This is not a security "failure"; it is security SUCCESS, to Uribe & brethren. It was INTENDED all along,

"Combating" rightwing death quads "is not a priority" to Colombia's government and military, NOT because they are "in denial" about security "failures," but because they ARE the rightwing death squads. These are their own people--going in and murdering union leaders, human rights workers, community organizers, peasant farmers--in places where the Colombian military has not been able to "root out" the POLITICAL opposition to the fascist government.

So that's just for starters--the "spin" that Vivanco and Romero put on the horrors in Colombia. 'Those poor little leaders of Colombia! They just can't understand what's happened...".

But a deeper question is the possible CIA set-up of Alvaro Uribe to take the bulk of the blame for these "security failures," in what may be a strategy to put Manuel Santos into the presidency. Former Defense Minister Santos is the 'Donald Rumsfeld' of South America--an arrogant, sarcastic, steely-eyed, conscienceless killer, who is chafing at the bit to invade Venezuela, kill all the leftists and hand the biggest oil reserves on earth over to his friends at the Pentagon and Exxon Mobil. Uribe is a civilian and--erratic and corrupt as he is, with his own power built on a pile of bodies--he has some concern about Colombia's relations with other Latin America countries. Santos does not. He has a "fuck you!" attitude to the rest of the region (and has a particular vendetta against Chavez). He will be, essentially, a military dictator--and Uribe will be sidelined, if he's lucky (or could suffer the fate of Diem in South Vietnam in 1963). Uribe's trying to arrange a third term. That idea may be nixed in Washington, and the Santos plan implemented.

We really, REALLY must realize that the NYT is involved in these kind of Pentagon/CIA geopolitical strategies. They are not clean. We certainly should have realized that during the Iraq War buildup. They were a KEY factor in that lying narrative for war. Are they doing it again? What is their MOTIVE for their phony concern about "human rights" in Colombia?

I could have it wrong. It could be something else. (My mind leaped to Brazil--corporate investment in Brazil; the Olympics, etc. NYT owners are invested in Brazil and this is a ploy of some sort, to get in good with Brazil's leftist president???) The thing we can be sure of is that there IS an ulterior MOTIVE, especially when we see both of these untrustworthy sources--Romero and Vivanco--working in tandem to promote something. (It could also be that they are working together to get out ahead of the La Macarena massacre story, which has yet to be reported here--was the U.S. military involved in the massacre?--to make it look like the U.S./Colombia are now on a different path and are "shocked, SHOCKED!" that massacres are occurring in Colombia--and are for sure going to prosecute SOMEBODY or "write a report.")

United States’ Policies in Columbia Support Mass Murder

Over the past two years, Colombia has been Washington’s third largest recipient of foreign aid, behind only Israel and Egypt. In July of 2000, the U.S. Congress approved a $1.3 billion war package for Colombia to support President Pastrana’s “Plan Colombia.” Plan Colombia is a $7.5 billion counter-narcotics initiative. In addition to this financial support, the US also trains the Colombian military.

Colombia’s annual murder rate is 30,000. It is reported that around 19,000 of these murders are linked to illegal right-wing paramilitary forces. Many leaders of these paramilitary groups were once officers in the Colombian military, trained at the U.S. Military run School of the Americas.

According to the Human Rights Watch Report, a 120-page report titled “The ‘Sixth Division’: Military-Paramilitary Ties and US Policy in Colombia,” Colombian armed forces and police continue to work closely with right-wing paramilitary groups. The government of President Pastrana and the US administration have played down evidence of this cooperation. Jim Lobe says that Human Rights Watch holds the Pastrana administration responsible for the current, violent situation because of its dramatic and costly failure to take prompt, effective control of security forces, break their persistent ties to paramilitary groups, and ensure respect for human rights.

Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair contend that the war in Colombia isn’t about drugs. It’s about the annihilation of popular uprisings by Indian peasants fending off the ravages of oil companies, cattle barons and mining firms. It is a counter-insurgency war, designed to clear the way for American corporations to set up shop in Colombia.

Cockburn and St. Clair examined two Defense Department commissioned reports, the RAND Report and a paper written by Gabriel Marcella, titled “Plan Colombia: the Strategic and Operational Imperatives.” Both reports recommend that the US step up its military involvement in Colombia. In addition, the reports make several admissions about the paramilitaries and their links to the drug trade, regarding human rights abuses by the US-trained Colombian military, and about the irrationality of crop fumigation.

Throughout these past two years, Colombian citizens have been the victims of human rights atrocities committed by the US-trained Colombian military and linked paramilitaries. Trade unionists and human rights activists face murder, torture, and harassment. It is reported that Latin America remains the most dangerous place in the world for trade unionists. Since 1986, some 4,000 trade unionists have been murdered in Colombia. In 2000 alone, more trade unionists were killed in Colombia than in the whole world in 1999.

More:
http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/3-united-states-policies-in-columbia-support-mass-murder/

United States’ Policies in Columbia Support Mass Murder

Over the past two years, Colombia has been Washington’s third largest recipient of foreign aid, behind only Israel and Egypt. In July of 2000, the U.S. Congress approved a $1.3 billion war package for Colombia to support President Pastrana’s “Plan Colombia.” Plan Colombia is a $7.5 billion counter-narcotics initiative. In addition to this financial support, the US also trains the Colombian military.

Colombia’s annual murder rate is 30,000. It is reported that around 19,000 of these murders are linked to illegal right-wing paramilitary forces. Many leaders of these paramilitary groups were once officers in the Colombian military, trained at the U.S. Military run School of the Americas.

According to the Human Rights Watch Report, a 120-page report titled “The ‘Sixth Division’: Military-Paramilitary Ties and US Policy in Colombia,” Colombian armed forces and police continue to work closely with right-wing paramilitary groups. The government of President Pastrana and the US administration have played down evidence of this cooperation. Jim Lobe says that Human Rights Watch holds the Pastrana administration responsible for the current, violent situation because of its dramatic and costly failure to take prompt, effective control of security forces, break their persistent ties to paramilitary groups, and ensure respect for human rights.

Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair contend that the war in Colombia isn’t about drugs. It’s about the annihilation of popular uprisings by Indian peasants fending off the ravages of oil companies, cattle barons and mining firms. It is a counter-insurgency war, designed to clear the way for American corporations to set up shop in Colombia.

Cockburn and St. Clair examined two Defense Department commissioned reports, the RAND Report and a paper written by Gabriel Marcella, titled “Plan Colombia: the Strategic and Operational Imperatives.” Both reports recommend that the US step up its military involvement in Colombia. In addition, the reports make several admissions about the paramilitaries and their links to the drug trade, regarding human rights abuses by the US-trained Colombian military, and about the irrationality of crop fumigation.

Throughout these past two years, Colombian citizens have been the victims of human rights atrocities committed by the US-trained Colombian military and linked paramilitaries. Trade unionists and human rights activists face murder, torture, and harassment. It is reported that Latin America remains the most dangerous place in the world for trade unionists. Since 1986, some 4,000 trade unionists have been murdered in Colombia. In 2000 alone, more trade unionists were killed in Colombia than in the whole world in 1999.

More:
http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/3-united-states-policies-in-columbia-support-mass-murder/

1. What is the U.S. doing in Colombia? Why are we increasingly involved in another country’s civil war? Why have we sided with the fascists in that civil war—who have committed far more atrocities than their adversaries (by every objective account, including Amnesty International and the UN Human Rights Commission)?

>>Well Colombia and her neighbors have been a well-known CIA playground for awhile now; sparking violence, instability and installing U.S.-friendly political leaders (I've lost track on the actual players in the game and who's on which side at the moment)...U.S.-friendly political and economic heavyweights don't sell their loyalty out of the goodness of their hearts; they have their own internal problems that the CIA is well-suited to handle as "favors"...After so much back scratching and one hand washing the other, ethics and morality die a quick death...


2. With many Latin American leaders seriously questioning the U.S. “war on drugs” and some countries altogether banning it, as ineffective and a militaristic menace, why is the U.S. still pushing it, and pushing it hard?

>>Because like the Israel-Palestine conflict, the BCS and other things, the powers that be find it more profitiable sticking with the status quo, even if they have to use ever-tightening contortions to prop it up...

February 4, 2010 at 09:18:29
Obama's Pact For Colombia Bases Termed "Dangerous"
By Sherwood Ross

The Obama administration's pact to use seven Colombian military bases accelerates "a dangerous trend in U.S. hemispheric policy," an article in The Nation magazine warns.

The White House claims the deal merely formalizes existing military cooperation but the Pentagon's 2009 budget request said it needed funds to improve one of the bases in order to conduct "full spectrum operations throughout South America" and to "expand expeditionary warfare capability."

"With a hodgepodge of treaties and projects, such as the International Law Enforcement Academy and the Merida Initiative, Obama is continuing the policies of his predecessors, spending millions to integrate the region's military, policy, intelligence and even, through Patriot Act-like legislation, judicial systems," writes historian Greg Grandin, a New York University professor.

Although much of Latin America is in the vanguard of the "anti-corporate and anti-militarist global democracy movement," Grandin writes, the Obama administration is "disappointing potential regional allies by continuing to promote a volatile mix of militarism and free-trade orthodoxy in a corridor running from Mexico to Colombia." Grandin's article in The Nation's February 8th issue is titled, "Muscling Latin America."

The fountainhead of this effort is Plan Colombia, a multibillion-dollar U.S. aid package that over the past decade "has failed to stem the flow of illegal narcotics into the United States," Grandin says, noting that more Andean coca was synthesized into cocaine in 2008 than in 1998.

Underlying the anti-drug fight, however, is a counterinsurgency struggle for control of "ungoverned spaces" via a "clear, hold and build" sequence urged by the U.S. military to weaken Colombia's Revolutionary Armed Forces(FARC). The Bush White House condoned the right-wing paramilitaries who, along with their narcotraficante allies "now control about 10 million acres, roughly half of the country's most fertile land," Grandin reports. They also spread terror in the countryside and are responsible for many killings and for driving peasants from their land.

Grandin reports that the paras "have taken control of hundreds of municipal governments, establishing what Colombian social scientist Leon Valencia calls "true local dictatorships,' consolidating their property seizures and deepening their ties to narcos, landed elites and politicians."

What's more, "The country's sprawling intelligence apparatus is infiltrated by this death squad/narco combine, as is its judiciary and Congress, where more than forty deputies from the governing party are under investigation for ties to (the right-wing) AUC (United Self Defense Forces).

More:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Obama-s-Pact-For-Colombia-by-Sherwood-Ross-100203-535.html

Colombia's new death squads exposed
Thursday 04 February 2010by Tom Mellen

New death squads have arisen to replace Colombia's notorious right-wing paramilitary groups - and they are committing the same acts of terrorism against trade unionists as their predecessors, a prominent US-based rights organisation has warned.

Under pressure from human rights groups and Washington, Bogota has overseen the demobilisation of over 31,000 fighters from the so-called United Self-Defence Forces of Colombia, or AUC, in recent years.

But dozens of groups have emerged as successors, engaging in activities ranging from mass murder to extortion, according to New York-based Human Rights Watch (HRW).

The death squads were organised by rural landowners, ostensibly to counter leftwing guerilla groups. They soon became a powerful, lawless force in much of the country, with links to senior rightwing politicians and drugs cartels.

The US government has declared the AUC a terrorist organisation, and government pressure eventually forced the paramilitaries to disband between 2003 and 2006.

The 113-page Paramilitaries' Heirs: The New Face of Violence in Colombia report, based on nearly two years of research, documents widespread and serious abuses by the new groups.

According to the report, the groups regularly commit massacres, killings, forced displacement, rape, and extortion, and "create a threatening atmosphere in the communities they control."

Often, they target trade unionists, human rights defenders, victims of the paramilitaries who are seeking justice and community members who do not follow their orders.

More:
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/view/full/86454